- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:31:49 -0500
- To: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>
- Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, public-xml-binary@w3.org
Stephen D. Williams scripsit:
> Eben:
>
> The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules
> of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The
> situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static
> or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in
> order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new
> combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under
> the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code
> had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to
> the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing,
But that leaves open the question of subclassing. If some application
classes are subclasses of classes in the LGPL library, does that make
the total application a "work based on the library"? The FSF seems
to think so (as does the Apache Software Foundation), because a Java
program is essentially one big library.
--
"Do I contradict myself? John Cowan
Very well then, I contradict myself. jcowan@reutershealth.com
I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass http://www.reutershealth.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 04:32:31 UTC